Essay: The Delian League

Evolving out of the Hellenic League, the Delian League, as referred to by modern scholars, allowed a voluntary confederacy of like-minded Greek city states to form under the hegemony of Athens. Ultimately, the league sought to disband the threat of a revived Persian invasion and for the Greeks to “compensate themselves for their losses” (Thucydides) suffered during the prior Persian wars. The liberation of Greeks throughout Asia Minor who were still under Persian influence was an additional aspiration of the league. The contributions of members, whether through financial means or donation of triremes, was fundamental to the longevity of the league and the achievement of their objectives. A treasury at Delos was established due to its political neutrality, geographic positioning alongside the religious and cultural significance of the island.  Individually, Aristides and Cimon were critical figures in the development of the Delian League, and their contributions cannot be rightfully omitted.
Athenian leadership of the league can be attributed to Sparta’s reversion to an isolationist stance alongside a general distaste towards the brutal leadership of Spartan general Pausanias, accused of colluding with the Persian forces and thus bringing “disunity to Greece” (Plutarch). Furthermore, Sparta was eager to resolve their own domestic issues including ongoing concern of helot revolt. Henceforth, “most of the allies … put themselves under the orders of Aristides and Cimon” (Plutarch), to which the Spartans gave no objection.
Moreover, the confidence in Aristides’ just character, unquestioned honesty and integrity “which impressed itself upon the masses” (Plutarch), instilled Aristides with the responsibility of the organisation and management of the Delian League’s affairs. Notably, Aristides instituted an oath of loyalty to be pledged by the allies and established each state’s financial contribution to the league.
Aristotle claims that the oath solidified the permanent membership of the state to the league, “to confirm they sank lumps of iron in the sea”, from whereon the allies “should have the same enemies and friends”.  The alliance would remain unbroken until the iron lumps rose to the ocean surface.
Contributions of the members towards the league’s ongoing operations were established to maintain the defensive and offensive military capability of the confederacy. Aristides ensured the phoros of each state was adjusted quadrennially according to “each member’s worth and ability to pay” (Plutarch), which won the Athenian statesman further admiration, as the states “felt they had been appropriately and satisfactorily treated” (Plutarch). The collection of these monetary contributions was overseen by ten officials; Hellenotamiae, who were invariably of Athenian heritage.  However, contributions to the league were not solely financial, according to Plutarch, some larger islands including Chios, Lesbos, Naxos and Samos contributed in the form of ships, a proposition credited to Cimon. However, the popularity of naval contributions declined dramatically, due to the expense involved in keeping the vessels and crews prepared for Persian attack. Evidently, Aristides implementation of oaths of allegiance as well as league tributes were fundamental contributions in the organisational aspect of the Delian League, as they enforced the ongoing commitment of members and subsequent success of the confederacy through consistent funding. Moreover it is evident that Aristides was crucial in the acquisition of Athenian leadership of the league as “the Ionians… through [Aristides] transferred their allegiance to the Athenians” (Bury and Meiggs).
Additionally, the Delian League was organised in a manner that allowed for the independence and autonomy of each state to be preserved and their individual form of government to remain. However, this argument is paradoxically contended by the denial of a member’s wish to abandon the alliance.
As the treasury, Delos hosted meetings between the representative deputies from each state. Although each deputy is believed to have had equal voting rights in the League synod, Athens undoubtedly exercised its influence and prestige to convince smaller poleis to align with them.
However, Cimon’s contributions arguably outweigh those of Aristides and can thus be regarded as the most substantial in the ongoing development of the Delian League. Frequenting the position as naval commander of the league’s fleet between 476BC and 463BC, Cimon’s successful campaigns lamented the importance of his contributions to the alliance. Having gained military favour through his involvement in the Battle of Salamis (480BC), Cimon established himself amongst the Athenian elite. Aided by Aristides, Cimon’s status alongside the “virtue of his character and skill in handling men” (Plutarch) was pivotal in converting the hegemony of the league from Sparta to Athens.
In accordance with the initial aims of the league, Cimon’s early campaigns were directed towards dissolving the threat of a revitalised Persian force and liberating states under Persian control. The reclaiming of Byzantium and removal of Pausanias in 479-478BC, allowed the restoration of Greek trading routes through the Black Sea in addition to ceasing Persian access to their garrison in Thrace. Furthermore, Cimon reconquered Eion on the Strymon River during 476-475BC, a strategic decision due to its status as a Persian supply depot and garrison. The operation also removed the opportunity for Persia to launch offensive action against Greece from their military base in Eion.
Nevertheless, most considerable is Cimon’s triumphant defeat of Persian forces through a combined land and naval attack at the Battle of Eurymedon in 468BC. At this time, the coast of Caria remained under Persian control, to the distaste of Cimon. Henceforth, Cimon directed the League’s activities to liberate these cities, “until not a single Persian soldier was left on the mainland of Asia Minor from Ionia to Pamphylia” (Plutarch). According to Plutarch, some of the cities along this coastline were “sacked or destroyed”, whilst others were “induced to revolt or [were] annexed”.  However, the defiance of Phaselis to revolt against Persia and join Cimon’s campaign, led the league to assail the city until it surrendered and enlisted in the Delian League. Ambitiously, Cimon decided to strike against the sizeable Persian fleet and army based at the mouth of the Eurymedon River in the hopes of fatally damaging the Persian army and thus instilling a fear that would prohibit them from returning to Aegean indefinitely. Cimon accomplished his naval defeat and on the same day “threw back the barbarians with great slaughter” allowing the Greeks to “capture the [Persian] army and its camp, which was full of all kinds of spoil” (Plutarch). Thus, this contribution of Cimon’s military knowledge and skill
to the league was critical, as the Battle of Eurymedon justified the existence of the league and symbolised the accomplishment of its objectives. The Delian League had liberated Greek poleis, recompensed itself for the Persian Wars through gaining Persian resources and wealth and secured itself against future attack by the complete annihilation of Persian forces.
Additionally, Cimon also executed military operations against existing members of the Delian League as well as coercing other states to enroll in the confederacy. The Delian League fleet fronted by Cimon captured the island of Scyrus, which had been inhabited by non-Greek pirates who “rendered the sea insecure and disturbed the trade of the coasts” (Ernst Curtius). Cimon expelled the pirates and established a cleruchy on the island, reopening safe trading between Athens and western Thrace. Plutarch also recounts an oracle that instructed Cimon to remember the bones of Theseus, and “restore those sacred relics to their home” (Curtius).
Cimon greatly feared the possibility of collaboration between Carystus and Persia due to its geographical positioning, in close proximity to Athens. Cimon justified the forced allegiance of the neutral Carystus in 472BC to the Delian League as a matter of political necessity. He argued that the threat of invasion towards all members would be heightened if Carystus were to be settled as a Persian stronghold.
Furthermore, acting on the behalf of the league, Cimon suppressed the revolt of Naxos in 469BC, who were threatening to secede the League. Cimon sieged and ultimately defeated the state, resulting in the loss of Naxos’ independence and likely the forced surrender of her fleet as well as the commencement of their status as a tribute-paying subject.  Thus, Cimon reaffirmed the seriousness of the Delian Leagues’ oath which had been implemented by Aristides, subsequently adding weight to value of both their individual contributions to the confederation.
The revolt of Thasos in 465BC is pertinent in the ongoing development of the league as well as Cimon’s contribution to the alliance. CHECK THIS with worksheet A dispute arose between Athens and Thasos regarding gold mining and trade in the region that led to Thasos’ withdrawal from the league. Thasos was a vital member of the league as it was considered to be one of the largest ship contributors to the league. Thus, Athens enlisted the aid of the league to siege Thasos for a period of two years, further demonstrating the permanence of the oath and inability of states to break from the alliance. The eventual submission of Thasos to Athens resulted in the loss of the states’ autonomy, confiscation of their naval fleet, termination of the mint and demolition of city walls. Thasos also became a tribute-paying subject and were forced to submit their possessions to Athens.
Alongside Cimon’s insurmountable contributions to the activities of the Delian League, he is also credited with innovating the Greek trireme in 476BC. Cimon allegedly widened the decks and gangways, thus “building the superstructure” (Boris Rankov) to improve the effectiveness of the warships by allowing greater numbers of troops to be transported on each trireme. Cimon most probably engaged in this innovation to “replace ramming tactics, which relied on speed and agility, with boarding tactics” (Rankov).
As well as this, Cimon utilised his personable relations with Sparta to the benefit of the league. Cimon’s pro-Spartan tendencies reduced the fear of conflict between the Peloponnese and Athens and her allies, subsequently allowing the Delian League to focus exclusively on the removal of the Persian enemy. Thus, Cimon aided in the achievement of the Delian League’s long-term objectives.
Therefore, Cimon “contributed to the easy and successful assumption of the maritime hegemony by Athens” by “proving himself a born leader” (Curtius) of the Delian League fleet. Curtius interprets Cimon’s contributions to the confederacy being of the utmost significance, as it is Cimon’s “knowledge of affairs and energy of action all the successes of the naval campaigns were principally due”. Similarly, Plutarch praises Cimon’s character and engagements during his service to the league, “he was as brave as Miltiades and as intelligent as Themistocles and is generally admitted to have been a juster man than either”.
Judging upon the evidence, the magnitude of Aristides and Cimon’s contributions towards the development of the Delian League is considerable. Foremost, without Cimon and Aristides it is most probable that the league would have taken a vastly different trajectory, possibly operating under Spartan leadership or even ceasing to exist. The bestowal of hegemony upon Athens is largely attributable to the perception of Cimon and Aristides as just and highly respected political figures throughout Greece. Whilst the implementation of important organisational constitutions including oaths and donations to the league through either financial means or in the form of ships is attributable to Aristides, these are outweighed by the contributions of Cimon. Ultimately, the success of Cimon’s naval campaigns against the Persian enemy, conquests against other members of the alliance and enlisting of geographically important states, ensured the supremacy and continuing stability of the Delian League in the Aegean Sea.  Additionally, his improvements to the trireme structure and amicable interactions with Sparta further facilitated Cimon’s achievement of the leagues’ purposes. Ergo, the amendments of Aristides were fundamental in the development of the Delian League; although Cimon’s contributions are of greater grandeur.